-
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2021Hamstring Strain Injuries (HSIs) are the most common type of lesion in professional footballers and the leading cause of absence days from sports. However, recent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hamstring Strain Injuries (HSIs) are the most common type of lesion in professional footballers and the leading cause of absence days from sports. However, recent studies have shown that high-level football teams apparently do not apply any HSI prevention protocol. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of preventive strategies and protocols in reducing the incidence of hamstring muscle injuries in professional and semi-professional football teams. A literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI/Web of Science and Scopus databases was conducted with the keywords "hamstring* and (injury* or strain) and prevent* and (soccer or football)". Quality and bias assessment was completed through the Kennelly modified scale. The Injury Incidence Rate (IIR) and the Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) were assessed in the statistical analysis. In the meta-analysis, data were extracted, pooled and analysed with "Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.3.070" software. In total, 8 of the 1017 original search studies met the inclusion criteria of this review. The total exposure of the studies was 170,221.8 h, while the number of HSIs recorded was 165 in the intervention groups and 224 in the control groups. The average score of the quality assessment was 23.6/34. The meta-analysis of six of the eight included studies provided strong evidence that interventions are effective in reducing hamstring injuries. The IRR of the effect size was 0.443, with -value = 0.001. The studies analysed applied different preventive strategies: the Nordic hamstring exercise, the FIFA 11+ programme and exercises for core stability or balance training. All these interventions proved to have a successful effect on prevention of hamstring injuries.
Topics: Athletic Injuries; Hamstring Muscles; Humans; Leg Injuries; Soccer
PubMed: 34444026
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18168272 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Aug 2021To systemically synthesise the evidence on the most effective nursing interventions to prevent pressure injuries among critical care patients. (Review)
Review
AIM
To systemically synthesise the evidence on the most effective nursing interventions to prevent pressure injuries among critical care patients.
BACKGROUND
Although pressure injury (PI) prevention is a focus of nursing care in critical care units, hospital-acquired pressure injuries continue to occur in these settings.
DESIGN
A systematic review of literature guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched for relevant studies. Included studies were screened and then critically appraised using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool. Data were analysed and reported using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The review included 14 studies. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, case series and cross-sectional studies were included. The review identified four broad categories of interventions that are the most effective for preventing pressure injuries: (a) PI prevention bundles, (b) repositioning and the use of surface support, (c) prevention of medical device-related pressure injuries and (d) access to expertise. All the included studies reported a reduction in pressure injuries following the interventions; however, the strength of the evidence was rated from moderate to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
Nurses are well qualified to lead in the prevention of pressure injuries in critical care units. Every critically ill patient requires interventions to prevent pressure injuries, and the prevention of PIs should be considered a complex intervention. Nurses must plan and implement evidence-based care to prevent all types of pressure injuries, including medical device-related pressure injuries. Education and training programmes for nurses on PI prevention are important for prevention of pressure injuries.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Nursing interventions should consist of evidence-based 'bundles' and be adapted to patients' needs. To prevent pressure injuries among critically ill patients, nurses must be competent and highly educated and ensure fundamental strategies are routinely implemented to improve mobility and offload pressure.
Topics: Humans; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Cross-Sectional Studies; Delivery of Health Care; Intensive Care Units; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 33590917
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15709 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2022Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics which contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of intra-alveolar chlorhexidine also presents a serious risk of anaphylaxis to the patient.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aims to investigate the aetiology, prevention and management of AO and highlight the extent of inappropriate prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine use.
DESIGN
A scoping review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Ovid and Pubmed were searched between 2010 and 2020, from which 63 studies were selected for review that related to the aetiology, prevention or management of AO. Data were analysed for frequency of studies reporting information on risk factors for aetiology, prevention strategies and management including inappropriate management using antibiotic prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine.
RESULTS
Impaired immune response, surgical technique and age were identified as significant factors in the development of AO, while there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of smoking and gender. With regard to prevention, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not supported within the literature. Saline irrigation and eugenol pastes used preventively have been shown to be cheap and effective alternatives to chlorhexidine with no adverse effects. Hyaluronic acid and low-level laser therapies showed a significant reduction in pain and soft-tissue inflammation in the management of AO compared to Alveogyl.
CONCLUSIONS
Further understanding of the pathophysiology of AO is needed, in addition to large high-quality RCTs or long-term observational studies into the aetiology, prevention, and management of AO to produce up-to-date evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clinicians should also be mindful of their contribution to growing antimicrobial resistance and avoid inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Saline should replace chlorhexidine as the intra-alveolar irrigant of choice.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Smoking; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34625985
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13268 -
Journal of Athletic Training Nov 2017Reference: Schiftan GS, Ross LA, Hahne AJ. The effectiveness of proprioceptive training in preventing ankle sprains in sporting populations: a systematic review and... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Reference: Schiftan GS, Ross LA, Hahne AJ. The effectiveness of proprioceptive training in preventing ankle sprains in sporting populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(3):238-244.
CLINICAL QUESTION
Does the use of proprioceptive training as a sole intervention decrease the incidence of initial or recurrent ankle sprains in the athletic population?
DATA SOURCES
The authors completed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) from inception to October 2013. The reference lists of all identified articles were manually screened to obtain additional studies. The following key words were used. Phase 1 population terms were sport*, athlet*, and a combination of the two. Phase 2 intervention terms were propriocept*, balance, neuromusc* adj5 train*, and combinations thereof. Phase 3 condition terms were ankle adj5 sprain*, sprain* adj5 ankle, and combinations thereof.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included according to the following criteria: (1) the design was a moderate- to high-level randomized controlled trial (>4/10 on the PEDro scale), (2) the participants were physically active (regardless of previous ankle injury), (3) the intervention group received proprioceptive training only, compared with a control group that received no proprioceptive training, and (4) the rate of ankle sprains was reported as a main outcome. Search results were limited to the English language. No restrictions were placed on publication dates.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently reviewed the studies for eligibility. The quality of the pertinent articles was assessed using the PEDro scale, and data were extracted to calculate the relative risk. Data extracted were number of participants, intervention, frequency, duration, follow-up period, and injury rate.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the initial 345 studies screened, 7 were included in this review for a total of 3726 participants. Three analyses were conducted for proprioceptive training used (1) to prevent ankle sprains regardless of history (n = 3654), (2) to prevent recurrent ankle sprains (n = 1542), or (3) as the primary preventive measure for those without a history of ankle sprain (n = 946). Regardless of a history of ankle sprain, participants had a reduction in ankle-sprain rates (relative risk [RR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55, 0.77; numbers needed to treat [NNT] = 17, 95% CI = 11, 33). For individuals with a history of ankle sprains, proprioceptive training demonstrated a reduction in repeat ankle sprains (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.51, 0.81; NNT = 13, 95% CI = 7, 100). Proprioceptive training as a primary preventive measure demonstrated significant results (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.34, 0.97; NNT = 33, 95% CI = 16, 1000).
CONCLUSIONS
Proprioceptive training programs were effective in reducing the incidence rates of ankle sprains in the athletic population, including those with and those without a history of ankle sprains.
Topics: Ankle Injuries; Ankle Joint; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Proprioception; Sports; Sprains and Strains
PubMed: 29140127
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-52.11.16 -
Journal of the American Geriatrics... Oct 2021To compare the effectiveness of single, multiple, and multifactorial interventions to prevent falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older persons. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of single, multiple, and multifactorial interventions to prevent falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older persons.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, from inception until February 27, 2019. Two large RCTs (published in 2020 after the search closed) were included in post hoc analyses. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted.
RESULTS
NMA including 192 studies revealed that the following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fallers: exercise (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.89) and quality improvement strategies (e.g., patient education) (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.98). Exercise as a single intervention was associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86). Common components of multiple interventions significantly associated with a reduction in number of fallers and falls rate were exercise, assistive technology, environmental assessment and modifications, quality improvement strategies, and basic falls risk assessment (e.g., medication review). Multifactorial interventions were associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.80-0.95), but not with a reduction in number of fallers (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.01). The following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fall-related fractures: basic falls risk assessment (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39-0.94) and exercise (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.90).
CONCLUSIONS
In keeping with Tricco et al. (2017), several single and multiple fall prevention interventions are associated with fewer falls. In addition to Tricco, we observe a benefit at the NMA-level of some single interventions on preventing fall-related fractures.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Accidents, Home; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Environment Design; Exercise Therapy; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Independent Living; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Self-Help Devices
PubMed: 34318929
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17375 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Pit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children and adolescents. Deep pits and fissures can retain food debris and bacteria, making them difficult to clean, thereby causing them to be more susceptible to dental caries. The application of a pit and fissure sealant, a non-invasive preventive approach, can prevent dental caries by forming a protective barrier that reduces food entrapment and bacterial growth. Though moderate-certainty evidence shows that sealants are effective in preventing caries in permanent teeth, the effectiveness of applying pit and fissure sealants to primary teeth has yet to be established.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of sealants compared to no sealant or a different sealant in preventing pit and fissure caries on the occlusal surfaces of primary molars in children and to report the adverse effects and the retention of different types of sealants.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. Review authors scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group and split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a sealant with no sealant, or different types of sealants, for the prevention of caries in primary molars, with no restriction on follow-up duration. We included studies in which co-interventions such as oral health preventive measures, oral health education or tooth brushing demonstrations were used, provided that the same adjunct was used with the intervention and comparator. We excluded studies with complex interventions for the prevention of dental caries in primary teeth such as preventive resin restorations, or studies that used sealants in cavitated carious lesions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for the development of new carious lesions on occlusal surfaces of primary molars as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where studies were similar in clinical and methodological characteristics, we planned to pool effect estimates using a random-effects model where appropriate. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that randomised 1120 children who ranged in age from 18 months to eight years at the start of the study. One study compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with no sealant (139 tooth pairs in 90 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with no sealant (619 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with resin-based sealant (278 tooth pairs in 200 children); two studies compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with resin-based sealant (113 tooth pairs in 69 children); one study compared composite with fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant (40 tooth pairs in 40 children); and one study compared autopolymerised sealant with light polymerised sealant (52 tooth pairs in 52 children). Three studies evaluated the effects of sealants versus no sealant and provided data for our primary outcome. Due to differences in study design such as age of participants and duration of follow-up, we elected not to pool the data. At 24 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in the development of new caries lesions for the fluoride-releasing sealants or no treatment groups (Becker Balagtas odds ratio (BB OR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.42; 1 study, 85 children, 255 tooth surfaces). For glass ionomer-based sealants, the evidence was equivocal; one study found insufficient evidence of a difference at follow-up between 12 and 30 months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 449 children), while another with 12-month follow-up found a large, beneficial effect of sealants (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15; 107 children). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low, downgrading two levels in total for study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. We included six trials randomising 411 children that directly compared different sealant materials, four of which (221 children) provided data for our primary outcome. Differences in age of the participants and duration of follow-up precluded pooling of the data. The incidence of development of new caries lesions was typically low across the different sealant types evaluated. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low or very low for the outcome of caries incidence. Only one study assessed and reported adverse events, the nature of which was gag reflex while placing the sealant material.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of the evidence for the comparisons and outcomes in this review was low or very low, reflecting the fragility and uncertainty of the evidence base. The volume of evidence for this review was limited, which typically included small studies where the number of events was low. The majority of studies in this review were of split-mouth design, an efficient study design for this research question; however, there were often shortcomings in the analysis and reporting of results that made synthesising the evidence difficult. An important omission from the included studies was the reporting of adverse events. Given the importance of prevention for maintaining good oral health, there exists an important evidence gap pertaining to the caries-preventive effect and retention of sealants in the primary dentition, which should be addressed through robust RCTs.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Fluorides; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 35146744
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012981.pub2 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2019The effective approach on pressure ulcer (PU) prevention regarding patient safety in the hospital context was evaluated. Studies were identified from searches in EBSCO... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effective approach on pressure ulcer (PU) prevention regarding patient safety in the hospital context was evaluated. Studies were identified from searches in EBSCO host, PubMed, and WebofScience databases from 2009 up to December 2018. Studies were selected if they were published in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish; incidence of PUs was the primary outcome; participants were adults (≥18 years) admitted in hospital wards and/or units. The review included 26 studies. Studies related to prophylactic dressings applied in the sacrum, trochanters, and/or heels, education for health care professionals, and preventive skin care and system reminders on-screen inpatient care plan were effective in decreasing PUs. Most of the studies related to multiple intervention programmes were effective in decreasing PU occurrence. Single interventions, namely support surfaces and repositioning, were not always effective in preventing PUs. Repositioning only was effective when supported by technological pressure-mapping feedback or by a patient positioning system. Risk-assessment tools are not effective in preventing PUs. PUs in the hospital context are still a worldwide issue related to patient safety. Multiple intervention programmes were more effective in decreasing PU occurrence than single interventions in isolation. Single interventions (prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, repositioning, preventive skin care, system reminders, and education for health care professionals) were effective in decreasing PUs, which was always in compliance with other preventive measures. These results provide an overview of effective approaches that should be considered when establishing evidence-based guidelines to hospital health care professionals and administrators for clinical practice effective in preventing PUs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Bandages; Case-Control Studies; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hospitalization; Humans; Inpatients; Male; Patient Positioning; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Skin Care; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31264345
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13147 -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Jan 2022Football is the most practised sport in the world and is associated with the risk of injuries in the players. Some studies have been published that identify injury... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Football is the most practised sport in the world and is associated with the risk of injuries in the players. Some studies have been published that identify injury prevention programs, but there is no review of the full body of evidence on injury prevention programs for use by football coaches. The aim of this article was to carry out a systematic review of published studies on injury prevention programs for adult male footballers, identify points of common understanding and establish recommendations that should be considered in the design of injury prevention strategies.
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE databases were used to identify relevant published articles using the following keywords: "soccer" AND "injury" AND "prevention".
RESULTS
A total of 2512 studies were identified initially, but only 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, and their outcomes are presented. Results revealed that injury prevention programs in football have focused on strength training, proprioceptive training, multicomponent programs (balance, core stability, and functional strength and mobility), and warm-up programs.
CONCLUSION
Based on results from the studies analyzed, football players can lower the incidence of match and training injuries by participating in dynamic warm-up programs that include preventive exercises before games or during training sessions, and by adding strength, balance, and mobility training to the training sessions.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Athletic Injuries; Exercise; Soccer; Warm-Up Exercise
PubMed: 33188962
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.11.003 -
Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews Jan 2016Prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes is extremely important to help reduce the enormous burden of foot ulceration on both patient and health resources. A... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes is extremely important to help reduce the enormous burden of foot ulceration on both patient and health resources. A comprehensive analysis of reported interventions is not currently available, but is needed to better inform caregivers about effective prevention. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent first and recurrent foot ulcers in persons with diabetes who are at risk for ulceration.
METHODS
The available medical scientific literature in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane database was searched for original research studies on preventative interventions. Both controlled and non-controlled studies were selected. Data from controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
From the identified records, a total of 30 controlled studies (of which 19 RCTs) and another 44 non-controlled studies were assessed and described. Few controlled studies, of generally low to moderate quality, were identified on the prevention of a first foot ulcer. For the prevention of recurrent plantar foot ulcers, multiple RCTs with low risk of bias show the benefit for the use of daily foot skin temperature measurements and consequent preventative actions, as well as for therapeutic footwear that demonstrates to relieve plantar pressure and that is worn by the patient. To prevent recurrence, some evidence exists for integrated foot care when it includes a combination of professional foot treatment, therapeutic footwear and patient education; for just a single session of patient education, no evidence exists. Surgical interventions can be effective in selected patients, but the evidence base is small.
CONCLUSION
The evidence base to support the use of specific self-management and footwear interventions for the prevention of recurrent plantar foot ulcers is quite strong, but is small for the use of other, sometimes widely applied, interventions and is practically nonexistent for the prevention of a first foot ulcer and non-plantar foot ulcer.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Cost of Illness; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Foot; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Patient Compliance; Patient Education as Topic; Precision Medicine; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Self Care; Shoes
PubMed: 26340966
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2701 -
Injury Prevention : Journal of the... Dec 2019To determine whether multifactorial falls prevention interventions are effective in preventing falls, fall injuries, emergency department (ED) re-presentations and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether multifactorial falls prevention interventions are effective in preventing falls, fall injuries, emergency department (ED) re-presentations and hospital admissions in older adults presenting to the ED with a fall.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
Four health-related electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched (inception to June 2018).
STUDY SELECTION
RCTs of multifactorial falls prevention interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults ( ≥ 60 years) presenting to the ED with a fall with quantitative data on at least one review outcome.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers determined inclusion, assessed study quality and undertook data extraction, discrepancies resolved by a third.
DATA SYNTHESIS
12 studies involving 3986 participants, from six countries, were eligible for inclusion. Studies were of variable methodological quality. Multifactorial interventions were heterogeneous, though the majority included education, referral to healthcare services, home modifications, exercise and medication changes. Meta-analyses demonstrated no reduction in falls (rate ratio = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.05), number of fallers (risk ratio = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.18), rate of fractured neck of femur (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.25), fall-related ED presentations (rate ratio = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.16) or hospitalisations (rate ratio = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.89) with multifactorial falls prevention programmes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of multifactorial interventions to prevent falls or hospital utilisation in older people presenting to ED following a fall. Further research targeting this population group is required.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Accidents, Home; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Emergency Service, Hospital; Environment Design; Hospitalization; Humans; Primary Prevention; Program Development; Program Evaluation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31289112
DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043214